and imperfect Communion as this will be no good president nor an instance of any weight and authority to justifie the practice of Public Communion in one kind But after all perhaps there may be a great mistake and this Mass on Good-Friday though it be very different from all others yet may not be a Communion in one kind but in both and so may that in the Greek Church in the Lyturgy of the Presanctified which is used on most days in Lent and then we may relieve the Church of Rome from the difficulty of the Priests Communicating but in one kind and vindicate both the Churches in great measure from being guilty of such an irregular practice contrary to the general practice of the whole Church and to the institution of Christ this cannot to this day be laid to the Greek Church who never uses the Communion in one kind neither privately nor publickly nor could it be charged upon the Roman till long after this particular Mass on Good-Friday was used in it which it is plain it was in the eleventh Age from the Ordo Romanus Amulatius Alcuinus Rupertus Tuiriensis and others but there is no manner of proof that the Public Communion in one kind was brought into the Church of Rome till the thirteenth Century when it came by degrees into some particular Churches as Thomas Aquinas informs us and was afterwards established by a general Decree in the Council of Constance The Mass therefore on Good-Friday though it was a singular and different Office from all others they not thinking it fit for I know not what reasons to make a formal Consecration of Christ's Body on the same day he died but to Celebrate the Communion with what was thus consecrated the day before yet it was not wholly in the one species of Bread but in that of Wine too as is plain from the Office it self and from those Authors who have wrote upon it Corpus Domini quod pridiè remansit ponentes in patenam Subdiaconus teneat calicem cum vino non consecrato alter Subdiaconus patenam cum corpore Domini quibus tenentibus accipit unus Presbyter prior patenam alter calicem defertur super altare nudatum Ordo Romanus p. 75. ex Edit Hittorp The Bread which was Consecrated the day before was brought by the Sub Deacon and a Calice of unconsecrated Wine by another Sub-Deacon and the Priest sets them both together upon the Altar then after some Prayers and particularly the Lord's Prayer he takes the consecrated Bread ‖ Sumit de Sanctâ ponit in calicem Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sactificatum panem communicant omnes cum silentio Ib. and puts into the Calice and so the unconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread and then they all Communicate with silence They Communicated with the Bread and the Wine thus mixed together and so their Communion this day was not in one kind But this Wine says de Meaux was not truely Consecrated this Sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine by the mixture of the Body of our Lord cannot be that true Consecration by which the Wine is changed into the Bloud I cannot tell whether it be such a Consecration that does that in his sense but it may be as true a Sacramental Consecration of the Elements for all that not onely by vertue of the mixture and by way of contact as some explain it * Allter in Romano Ordine legitur ut contactu Dominici corporis integra fiat Communio Cassand de Com. sub utr p. 1027. Concil Araus primum but by the solemnity of the action and by all the Religious circumstances that attend it and especially by those Prayers and Thanksgivings which were then used as in Micrologus 't is clearly and plainly exprest †Vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ Oratione Dominici Corporis immissione jubet consecrare Microlog de Ecclesiast Observ c. 19. in Edit Hittorp p. 742. that the Wine is Consecrated with the Lords Prayer and the Immission of the Lord's Body And why will not de Meaux allow that a true Consecration may be made by those words and prayers as well as by those formal words This is my Body when it is made out beyound all contradiction both by Dallee and Albertinus that the Primitive Church did not Consecrate by those words but by a Prayer and their own St. Gregory says ‖ Apostolos solâ Dominicâ prece praemissâ consecrasse Sacramenta distribnisse Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. ad Syr. That the Apostles Consecrated the Sacrament only with the Lord's Prayer Which was used here and particularly observed to be so by Micrologus as that whereby the Wine was consecrated so that all Monsieur de Meaux's labour is vain to shew that the Consecration could not be without words And that it cannot enter into the mind of a man of sense that it could ever be believed in the Church the Wine was consecrated without words by the sole mixture of the Body The Consecration might be made without those very formal words now used in the Roman Missal as it was by Prayer in the Primitive Church Walafridus Strabo observes concerning this very Office on Good-Friday that it was agreeable to the more ancient and simple way of the Communion of the first Christians which was performed only with the use of the Lord's Prayer and some commemoration of Christ's Passion * Et relatio majorum est ita primis temporibus Missas fieri solitas sicut modo in Parasceue Paschae communicationem facere solemus i. e. prâmissâ Oratione Dominicâ sicut ipse Dominus noster praecepit commemoratione passionis ejus adhibita Walagrid Strabo de rebus Eccles c. 22. p. 680. Edit Hittorp and yet he did not question but the Consecration was truly made by that simple manner and it did so far enter into the minds of the men of sense that were in those times that they all did believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way for so says expresly the Ordo Romanus the ancient Ceremonial as he calls it of that Church the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated that I know of and it is plain they both mean the same thing there for it calls the consecrated Body the sanctified Body †Sanctificatur vinum non consecratumper sanctificatum panem and I know not what Sanctification of another nature that can be which is not Consecration or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation which requires the powerful and almighty words of This is my Body this is my Bloud to be pronounced over the Elements to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood but it agrees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament and the Primitive Christians no doubt had
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little of the Sacrament which is the thing he is said to send signifie onely Bread or the solid part or does it not rather signifie a little of both the Species which make the Sacrament as it plainly does in Justin Martyr who speaking of that Sacramental Food under both kinds says this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called by us the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ Apolog. 2. And why might not he give him a little Wine as well as a little Bread and why may we not suppose that the liquour he was to moisten the Bread in was the Wine And not as Valesius without any grounds puts in his Translation Water I believe it is a thing strange and unheard of in Antiquity to mix the Eucharistic Bread with meer Water and so take it infused in Water without any Wine Monsieur de Meaux who says the Custom of mixing the two species together was not in use till after-Ages not in public I own but in private it might will be more hard put to it to shew the custom of mixing the Species of Bread with Water and this was so mixt with some liquor that it was rather fluid than solid and so was said to be infused or poured into his mouth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. That the Wine was used to be carried to the sick as well as the Bread is plain from Justin Martyr if those who were absent from the Public Communion were as it is probable the sick for to them the Deacons carried the very same that they gave to those that were present without any manner of difference †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. as is plain from that fore-quoted place in his second Apology And St. Hierom relates of Exuperius Bisnop of Tholouse that he carried the Body of our Lord in a Basket and the Bloud in a Vessel of Glass ‖ Qui corpus Domini canistre vimineo sanguinem portat in vitro Ep. ad Rustic Monach. after he had sold the rich Utensils and Plate of the Church to relieve the Poor and redeem Captives And the Council of Tours thought the Wine so necessary as well as the Bread that it commands that the Bread be always dipped in the Cup that so the Priest may truly say the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail unto thee for the remission of Sins and to eternal Life This Cassander * Ego sane demonstare possum etiam infirmis plenum corporis sanguinis Sacramentum dispensatum certè in promtu est Capitulum Turonensis Concilii quod ab Ivone Reginone Burchardo anducitur quo jubetur ut Eucharistia quae in viaticum è vitâ excedentium reservatur intincta sit in Calicem D ◠ut Presbyter veraciter possit dicere Corpus sanguis D ni nostri Jesu Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 5. produces as a demonstration that the Communion of the Sick used to be in both kinds and the reason which is there given for this is so considerable that it plainly shews that both Species were necessary to make it a true Sacrament and that neither the Body and Bloud of Christ nor the vertue and benefit of them could be given without both and this forces de Meaux to confess †p. 52. after all his shifts and artifices that in effect it is true that in some sense to be able to call it the Body and the Bloud the two Species must be given And further from hence also the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation and Concomitancy grounded upon it whereby they suppose the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in either of the Species is wholly overthrown and destroyed but this by the by as to Serapion it is strange that the Priest should not rather have sent him the Wine alone if he had intended him but one Species that being more fit to be received and more proper to enter the parcht throat of an agonizing man as de Meaux speaks then the Bread however moistened and therefore it was provided both by the Cannons of some Councils ‖ Concil Carthag 4. Toled 11. and the Decrees of some Popes * Paschal 2. Vrban 2. that in cases of extraordinary necessity which dispence with positive Precepts the sick and dying who could not swallow the Bread might Communicate onely with the Wine but to give them onely Bread as de Meaux would have it in both his Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose who were both a dying and not to give them the more proper Species of Wine was very strange if they had designed them but one onely Species without the other But I pass to consider St. Ambrose by it self Paulinus who wrote his Life relates this of his Death That Honoratus Bishop of Verceills being to visit him in the night whilst he was at his repose he heard this Voice three times Rise stay not he is a dying He went down and gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint had no sooner received it but he gave up the Ghost So that it seems he died and received only one kind but who can help that if he did if he died before he could receive the other as it is probable from the History he did If the Roman Priests did like Honoratus give onely the Bread to those who when they have received it die before they can take the Cup this would be a very justifiable excuse and needs no great Authority to defend it but if they will undertake to prove that St. Ambrose had time enough to have received the Cup as well as the Bread before he died which they must meerly by supposing some thing more than is in the History then by the very same way I will prove that he did receive the Cup and that that by a Syneckdoche is to be understood as well as the Bread by the Body of Christ which he is there said to receive And I am sure I have a better argument for this than they can have against it or than these two Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose are for the custom of Communicating the Sick in one kind and that is a full proof of a contrary custom for their Communicating in both I confess I cannot produce any very ancient testimonies for this because in the first Ages the faithful who used to receive the Communion very frequently in public it being in its self and its own nature a true part of public Worship did seldom or never take it upon their Death beds in private †Vide Dallaeum de Cult l. 4. c. 3. and therefore they who give us an account of the death of several very pious and devout Christians as Athanasius of St. Antony Gregory Nazianzen of Athanasius of his own Father and of his Sister Gorgonia yet they never mention any thing of their receiving the Sacrament at their deaths no more
the Sumption of both necessary to him as the Eucharist is a Sacrament which Bellarmine says it is upon that very account †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both and the other be not necessary for this end All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice and as to that I shall onely ask him this question Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament as he did upon the Cross If he did and therefore two Species were necessary though if his Body and Blood be both together in one that might be sufficient why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross and by the mystical seperation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to represent how they were really separated at his death why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says They are not to the ground of the Mystery Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament designed to do all this and to be such a Remembrance of Christ and a shewing forth the Lord's death till he come as the Scripture speaks And do not they in great measure destroy this by giving the Sacrament in one kind without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed But says de Meaux The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite ‖ P. 175. This I confess for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man as some Heretics did of an Infant might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded this is requisite and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist to represent his Death I will own that to be requisite in answer to his § 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament which is not found in one Species alone for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent which is an Axiom of the School-men then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly so it exhibits it imperfectly but however if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign void of all grace as de Meaux indeed makes it though the name of a sign as applied to the Sacrament is so hard to go down with them at other times when he says of the species of Wine That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it and that this can adde nothing thereunto but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery * P. 185. II. The second question I proposed to consider was Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament This de Meaux and all of them pleade That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire †P. 306. §. 9. so that we have in his Flesh his Blood and in his Blood his Flesh and in either of the two his Person whole and entire and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity whole and entire so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist ‖ P. 327. according to these Principles of the Roman Church I am not here to dispute against those nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them and which if it be false destroys all the rest I mean Transubstantiation whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very natural Body of Christ with Flesh Bones Nerves and all other parts belonging to it and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Bloud and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh it must have the Blood joyned with it and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ which is always Hypostatically united to it and so does necessarily accompany it and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind I have these things to say 1. It does so confound the two Species and make them to be one and the same thing that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely impertinent but senceless For to what purpose or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread This is my Body and those again over the Wine This is my Blood If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine and the Wine the same thing with the Bread and to make onely the same thing twice over and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another for upon repeating the words This is my Body Christ's Body and Blood are both of them immediately and truly present and when they are so what need is there of the other form This is my Blood to make the same thing present again which was truly present before It matters not at all in this case whether they be present by vertue of the consecration or by vertue of Concomitancy for if they be truly present once what need they be present again if they become the same thing after the first form of Consecration which they do after the second why do they become the same thing twice or what need is there of another form of words to make the Wine become that which the Bread was before they hold it indeed to be Sacriledge not to consecrate both the Species but I cannot see according to this principle of theirs why the consecrating of one Species should not be sufficient when upon the consecration